Really? Personally, I don't want to have to figure out how to jump

I can think back to a bunch of games from the 90s when your character just appeared on the screen idling. You tap a button to see what it does and then you know what the button does. Of course, if a game is more complex then I would expect a little help. But when I am halfway through the game and you are still giving me clues on how to hang on a ledge....

The latest Tomb Raider game has a feature where you can see through walls to find medic packs. Really? And she does this with her bare eyes! We all know Tomb Raider isn't a cyborg. Let her look for the medic pack. If it's night time, giver her that flaming torch, but let her look! What satisfaction do I get from using super human mode to find stuff.

Another thing I see is this Bullet Time stuff. It was cool in Max Payne for a while and the best use of it was the Matrix game series. But I think the best combat gameplay I have ever seen in a game as pertains to close quarters combat was the a hack on the Enter the Matrix game where you could spar (ever played that one?):

We all know Tomb Raider isn't a cyborg.

Amagad you did not just refer to Lara as "Tomb Raider"? :D Me and my brother would laugh at one of our friend doing that and acting like he was a fan.

Wow, the more I hear from the latest TRs the more I dislike them. The last I played was Chronicles which was still pretty good but you could already start to see where the series was going.

The reason these games are not as fun [for a gamer] is that they have been dumbed down to appeal for a mass market. I remember spending weeks or even months playing Tomb Raider 2 but the latest instalment by Square took me about 8 hours to complete including unlocking all the achievments.

Developers need to appeal to a mass market and not just gamers. The Tomb Raider devs do not need to learn from a game like contrast because they already know how to make a good Tomb Raider game and they also know how to make a game that appeals to a wider audience. The market makes them go with the second option. They simplty cannot get away with making the kind of games that indies can.

It is the same with all media though and not just games. For example the films that win at the oscars such as The Kings Speech are not the same films that are being watched by wider audiences such as Expendables2 or Pacific Rim.

I think that now games have reached a mass market they need something similar to the Oscars and the acadamy so that developers although still being able to make mass market games can also strive towards making games that can earn them recognition as being the best chosen by their peers. The Golden Joystick awards just doesn't do this.

For example the films that win at the oscars such as The Kings Speech are not the same films that are being watched by wider audiences such as Expendables2 or Pacific Rim.

Good points -- reminded me of "where's our merchant ivory", and the follow-up "revenge of the highbrow games".

Visual representations are the first thing a consumer sees, and is why great games have great visuals. Simply aiming to achieve a modest proportion of time consumed into graphics is not a bad thing, I for one would rather have nice visual representations to guide my eyes and allow me to understand the game and mechanics faster (I am a visual person). When the creators seek to make graphics the selling point rather then the eye-catcher, we start to see problems.

however games 'dumbing down' are an entirely different topic that is, in reality, quite an extensive one. This sense of 'dumbing down' has started to become a common form of attack at games that gamers from older generations see as too easy. In reality, a lot of it is simply different. I find that the perfect new formula for a gaming system is to make it simple but versatile. For example, gw2.

We all know gw2, it had a controversial time when it was launched and kept to quite a lot of its hype. I've never gotten into mmo's before, but gw2 I just attached to. There were various reasons for this, but a main one was the fighting system.

Simple, yet versatile.

I had 5 main abilities, with an extra 5 special abilities. That's 10 abilities I have to focus on, instead of 40 different unnecessary additions that mmo's define themselves on. Yet their were still as many choices as any other mmo, it maintained its versatility.

Additionally, many things that are considered 'dumbing down' is actually more for convenience. For example, Skyrim changed from earlier elder scrolls in its quest system by having a tracker for the destinations within that quest. This isn't 'dumbing' the game down, but rather providing convenience for the player. I'm sure older elder scrolls players will remember quests that had terrible directions, causing painful searching for hours that really was not pleasant in any way.

However, it is true that many games are dumbing down in addition to making a simpler system. This is because the gaming community has started to blow out of proportion, where gaming itself has become an excepted norm in most country's, and E-sports has become a competitive sport for many people. A lot of games are now focusing on this market, realising that a lot of this new intake is related to casual gaming. That's right, they want money and the money is in casual gaming.

This does not mean games are going to eventually reduce until we can't recognise an easy game from a hard one, it simply means that a majority of games will be focusing on a more casual market, leaving the hardcore market to thrive in its own space. I, for one, am looking forward to many games that I don't consider 'dumbed down'. Dark souls 2, here I come.

Well, for good game vs good graphics

Good graphics are less matter of debate. But good game differs for everyone

For example , I remember Tomb Raider IV Last Revelation is being annoyingly difficult time to time, someone else might love and look for it.

I think point is an AAA title has not much to do thanks to what's forced to them.

They have to stick "proven" methods combined with expensive graphics and a gameplay designed for consols and morons , also leaving room for microtransactions.

We all know Tomb Raider isn't a cyborg.

Amagad you did not just refer to Lara as "Tomb Raider"? :D Me and my brother would laugh at one of our friend doing that and acting like he was a fan.

Yeah. We called Laura Croft "Tomb Raider." It was cooler. Haha.

ShadowFlar3, on 05 Dec 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Quote

We all know Tomb Raider isn't a cyborg.


Amagad you did not just refer to Lara as "Tomb Raider"? Me and my brother would laugh at one of our friend doing that and acting like he was a fan.


Yeah. We called Laura Croft "Tomb Raider." It was cooler. Haha.

Lara not Laura

It's because business and marketing departments actually design games, and not the developers. Sad truth. And what do business and marketing care about? Money (Well we all care about money) To get the most money, you must appeal to that 14 year old male. Tomb Raider stars a beautiful women who kills and adventures and wears tight clothing.

We must make those teenage males feel empowered! Lets make them able to kill and conquer with pressing as few buttons as possible! Cool, now lets do some user testing. Oh no, the people we brought in to user test, who have never played a video game before, can't jump over a ledge. Metrics driven design to the rescue!!!! It seems these numbers go up if we make difficulty go down, oh man, I'm a hot shot producer and designer.

Ok I could go on and on. But yeah, pretty much the story of this generation. Rail shooters, QTE based combat, regenerating health, no game over state, etc. From the outside, I always wondered how such crappy games got made. But, after working (programming) on a crappy game, you see exactly how this happens. Most programmers, artist, designers who work on these games know the flaws and how to fix them. The problem is the producers and marketing teams hold all the power. Even though you may have a MS in computer science and more shipped games, some banker who got hired on his first game as a producer is going to be making most of the decisions. And those decisions will be made for monetary reasons based on numbers and projections provided by the marketing team, not fun/quality/community/making a great product.

I'm sure we have all experienced this. Anyways TL;DR: Make your own games that rock ;)

It's because business and marketing departments actually design games, and not the developers. Sad truth. And what do business and marketing care about? Money (Well we all care about money) To get the most money, you must appeal to that 14 year old male. Tomb Raider stars a beautiful women who kills and adventures and wears tight clothing.

We must make those teenage males feel empowered! Lets make them able to kill and conquer with pressing as few buttons as possible! Cool, now lets do some user testing. Oh no, the people we brought in to user test, who have never played a video game before, can't jump over a ledge. Metrics driven design to the rescue!!!! It seems these numbers go up if we make difficulty go down, oh man, I'm a hot shot producer and designer.

Ok I could go on and on. But yeah, pretty much the story of this generation. Rail shooters, QTE based combat, regenerating health, no game over state, etc. From the outside, I always wondered how such crappy games got made. But, after working (programming) on a crappy game, you see exactly how this happens. Most programmers, artist, designers who work on these games know the flaws and how to fix them. The problem is the producers and marketing teams hold all the power. Even though you may have a MS in computer science and more shipped games, some banker who got hired on his first game as a producer is going to be making most of the decisions. And those decisions will be made for monetary reasons based on numbers and projections provided by the marketing team, not fun/quality/community/making a great product.

I'm sure we have all experienced this. Anyways TL;DR: Make your own games that rock ;)

It's quite understandable that the companies investing their money into you hold the power. I'd also like to point out that the new Lara Croft is holding to the same consensus it always has, being hot. The only difference now is that the graphics level is to a point where you can feel outraged at this supposed 'specification to teenagers'. Are you saying adults are any more mature when it comes to women and their looks?

So let's get to the core of the problem, you hate that the people who are trying to make money, try and make money when designing a game? To me this makes no sense. It should be a given that a company investment will seek to maximise that investment, this includes pandering to a more casual audience that has no interest in playing a demoralising games.